Deeming Clause in RERA registration Invalid for Incomplete Application: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court has clarified that administrative delays by urban planning bodies cannot does not extend the benefit of deeming clause for RERA applications submitted by real estate developers. Highlighting the strict 30-day mandate for regulatory authorities under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the High Court held that statutory authorities cannot exceed time limits set by law to reject applications. 

A single-judge bench comprising Justice Sashikanta Mishra was hearing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of a real estate registration application by the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority. 

Deeming Clause and RERA Registration Timeline 

The Orissa High Court clarified that the deeming clause for automatic registration under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 applies solely to complete and defect-free applications. However, the Court condemned the regulatory authority for keeping an application pending for one and a half years instead of deciding it within the mandatory 30-day statutory window. 

Applying the settled legal principle established in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, the Orissa High Court reiterated that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. Referring to State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, Rajsekhar Gogoi v. State of Assam ( "(2001) 6 SCC 46": 2001 CaseBase(SC) 211), and Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui ( "(1973) 3 SCC 889": 1972 CaseBase(SC) 36). The Court held that the word 'shall' in the provision renders the 30-day timeline mandatory because non-compliance carries statutory consequences. 

The Orissa High Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A careful reading of sub-section (2) would suggest that the authority (ORERA) has to take a decision on the application submitted within 30 days, either to reject it by giving reasons or to grant registration. It cannot keep the application pending beyond 30 days... keeping the application pending for one and half years i.e. till 27.10.2021 and rejecting it on the ground of delay in disposal cannot be countenanced in law." 

Administrative Delay in RERA Registration

The High Court also observed that the petitioner could not be faulted for failing to submit local authority approval when the approval application was delayed solely by the District Urban Development Agency. 

The Court has following directions: 

"This Court therefore, directs DUDA to take a decision on the application of the petitioner within seven days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If approval is granted by DUDA, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit application afresh before ORERA for grant of registration and in such event, ORERA shall deal with the same strictly as per the procedure laid down under section 5 of the Act." 

Background 

The petitioner, a real estate developer, received initial approval in 2016 from the B.D.O., Salipur for a group housing project named 'Exotica Garden'. Following the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the promoter applied for registration before ORERA in July 2018 with delay, which was entertained upon payment of a penalty. Subsequently, ORERA communicated multiple deficiencies. In 2020, following a state notification permitting promoters to seek approval from the District Urban Development Agency (DUDA), the petitioner applied to DUDA for project approval. 

While technical sanction was granted by the Town Planning Unit in October 2021, DUDA delayed final approval. Despite the pendency of the matter before DUDA, ORERA rejected the petitioner's registration application on October 27, 2021, citing the lapse of over a year and a half. The developer approached the Orissa High Court challenging this rejection. 

ORERA argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 44 of the Act, and that deemed registration applies only to complete applications. The High Court rejected the maintainability objection relying on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. -Vrs- Assistant Commissioner (AA) and others and Executive Engineer SOUTHCO -Vrs.- Sitaram Rice Mill, holding that questions regarding pure interpretations of law can be entertained in writ jurisdiction. 

Finding that the delay in obtaining final approval lay entirely with DUDA, the Orissa High Court quashed the rejection order's effect and issued time-bound directions for DUDA and ORERA. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: W.P.(C) No.33005 of 2022 

Case Title: Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Others 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Das, Advocate 

For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate, Mr. G. Mishra, Advocate, Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, Advocate, Mr. P.S. Nayak, Advocate 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ORI) 46